Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
